Employment appeal tribunal overturns disability discrimination dismissal

Introduction

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) delivered a significant judgment in the case of Mrs Alcian Roofe-Stewart vs MacIntyre Care Ltd, overturning a previous Employment Tribunal decision that had dismissed Mrs Roofe-Stewart's disability discrimination claim. The case revolved around the interpretation of disability under the Equality Act 2010 and the procedural handling of the claimant's medical condition.

Background

Mrs Roofe-Stewart, employed by MacIntyre Care Ltd as a Support Worker Practitioner since 2009, was dismissed in June 2021. The dismissal followed her refusal to participate in mandatory Covid-19 testing procedures, which she argued was due to her health condition. She claimed unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, citing her diagnosis of Mixed Connective Tissue Disease (MCTD) since 2010.

Initial Tribunal Decision

The initial Employment Tribunal found that Mrs Roofe-Stewart was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010 at the time of her dismissal. It concluded that her condition was quiescent and did not have a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Consequently, her disability discrimination claim was dismissed.

Appeal Grounds

Mrs Roofe-Stewart appealed the decision, arguing that the tribunal erred in its assessment of her condition's impact and the likelihood of recurrence of substantial adverse effects. The appeal also highlighted procedural shortcomings, such as the lack of a case-management hearing to consider the necessity of further medical evidence.

EAT's Findings

The EAT, presided over by His Honour Judge Auerbach, found that the tribunal had not adequately considered whether Mrs Roofe-Stewart's condition could be deemed to have a substantial adverse effect likely to recur, as required under schedule 1 paragraph 2(2) of the Equality Act 2010. The EAT highlighted the low threshold for establishing the likelihood of recurrence and noted that the tribunal failed to sufficiently explain its reasoning on this aspect.

Procedural Errors

The EAT also identified procedural errors in the tribunal's handling of the case. It noted the absence of a case-management hearing to explore whether further medical evidence was necessary, particularly regarding the likelihood of recurrence of Mrs Roofe-Stewart's condition. This oversight contributed to the EAT's decision to remit the case for reconsideration.

Remission and Future Directions

The EAT remitted the case to the Employment Tribunal for fresh consideration of the schedule 1 paragraph 2(2) issue. It directed that a case-management hearing should be held to determine whether additional medical or expert evidence should be sought to assist in resolving the matter.

Implications

This case underscores the importance of thorough procedural management in employment tribunal cases, particularly those involving complex medical conditions. It also highlights the need for tribunals to fully engage with the legal standards governing disability under the Equality Act 2010.

Learn More

Explore essential areas of UK employment law, including contracts, workplace policies, and discrimination.